"Girl Politicians Have Cooties" Jessica Valenti on HuffPo

[SeattleGirl]

Apparently, some boys still can't accept that "girl politicians' are smart, strong, have it together, and has every right to be in office, if that's what We The People say we want.

11.12.2006
Girl Politicians Have Cooties

2006 Tuesday's election results were a huge win for women...so why the sour grapes? With the Dems taking control of the house, Nancy Pelosi is set to become the first female Speaker of the House--the closest a woman has ever come to the Oval Office. Hillary is frigging everywhere, with rumors of a presidential run.

Claire McCaskill and Amy Klobuchar's wins put women's representation in the Senate to 16--an all-time high. The list of wins for women goes on and on. Clearly, American voters are taking women politicians seriously. Too bad everyone can't do the same. Some men have been coming out to describe their displeasure with women's wins in what can only be described as a "girls are icky" line of argument (whining).

Echidne points to a report from Media Matters; during MSNBC's election coverage, Chris Matthews said that that Senator Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard." He also said that Pelosi will "have to do the good fight with the president over issues" and asked: "How does she do it without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?"

Nothing like the sound of an uppity woman, huh Chris?

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-valenti/girl-politicians-have-coo_b_33947.html?view=print

[bloom]

1. "So grow up, boys."

is right.

I can see where some people have to listen to those twerps - just to keep tabs on them. They are not worth the time for most people. It ridiculous that any have jobs with such drivel. Dennis Miller's "Real Free Speech" is Real Free PUKE". :puke:

He is clearly trying to stir up shit - wants hatred between women and such libertarian, sexist, "free speech" assholes like himself.

I suppose the more obnoxious he is - the more people are supposed to turn in to see how obnoxious he is. That's nonsense.


I think that they are partly trying to pre-empt any women from think about running for president. And if any are serious about it - they can expect to have lots of sexist crap thrown at them. By morons.

I guess that's the way the game is going to be.

[SeattleGirl]

3. The game has, unfortunately, been that way for a long time.

Every time a woman, a black, a hispanic, a fill-in-the-blank, dares to challenge the white male establishment, this is the kind of crap they get. We have to keep fighting. It gets tiring, but it's always worth it in the end.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Unfortunately the article is like a rice cake - utterly devoid of any substance...

... which is too bad, given the importance and lack-of-general-publicity of the topic.

Without loss, the article could have been condensed to simply: Three pundits, who have been known to be jackasses for years, are sexist.

This is the problem with idiots advocating for important causes - they make the position itself look stupid.

Is it remotely conceivable that an article like that one could EVER be written by Molly Ivins. Of course not - the very idea is laughable. That's the difference between idiot and not-idiot.

[bloom]

4. Your post has far less substance than Ms. Valentis

She has lots of concrete examples as well links so that people can see exactly how disgusting these assholes are.


I, for one, would not waste my time watching these mindless, sexist, jerks like Miller - unfortunately he must have a following of drunken frat boys or something. He is the rice cake - devoid of substance. He didn't have anything worthwhile to back up his claims.


So who the hell are you? A fan of Millers?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

7. People can go to the article themselves to see how much "substance" it has.

Maybe people who think such topics are trivial do not see "substance" even if it is like a pie in the face.

Maybe you didn't get your point across because you started out sounding like one of the assholes your own self.

[SeattleGirl]

8. It's NOT an article. It's a blog post on Huffington Post. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. now THAT'S a substantive correction! LOLOLOL!!!

[SeattleGirl]

12. I was not making a correction on anything I did. I was correcting

your assumption that it was an article, rather than someones opinion posted on a bld.

What, pray tell, is your problem here?

[BlooInBloo]

13. Um, yah - I know your were correcting my nomenclature....

And I'm remarkably problem-free at the moment - thanks for asking tho! I hope you're doing well.

I admit to being a bit confused over your and the other person's danders being up over the idea that someone (me, in case it wasn't clear to you) would have the temerity to suggest that an important topic could be poorly presented (gasp! clutch the pearls! lol!).

But whatever - it's your (pl) dander - do with it what you (pl) will.

[BlooInBloo]

10. (shrug) I have no problem with that.

[SeattleGirl]

6. Who are you referring to as an "idiot"?

The writer of the blog post on HuffPo? Me? Dennis Miller? You post is unclear.

[BlooInBloo]

9. The author of the huffpo article. by contrast with ivins. they're both writers. on political topics.

get it? the attempt was to change as little as possible, in order to highlight the difference between idiot and not-idiot. apparently that attempt was less than a smashing success lol!

Correction to my original remark tho - it wasn't 3 pundits, it was 2 pundits and a president. They're still all known sexist jackasses tho, so the rest of what I said still goes through.